More fun with undefined

T.J. Crowder tj at
Fri Jun 15 00:36:06 PDT 2012

On 15 June 2012 08:09, Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at> wrote:

> On 15 June 2012 01:22, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at> wrote:
> > A wonder if this wart is hairy enough, that we wouldn't be justified in
> some
> > explicit backwards compatibility hackery in the spec. to remove it.
> >
> > For example, we could allow it to appear in parameter lists and provide a
> > dynamic check to ensure that nothing (other than a real undefined) is
> > passed.  Similarly we could explicitly allow:
> >       var undefined;
> Actually, for very much the same effect, you could simply treat
> 'undefined' as a (refutable) _pattern_ that is only matched by the
> undefined value. No need to make special rules for var or parameters
> then.

Folks, could we move the unrelated discussion to its own thread? This
thread's original subject is rather getting lost here.

-- T.J.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list